DVDActive uses cookies to remember your actions, such as your answer in the poll. Cookies are
also used by third-parties for statistics, social media and advertising. By using this website, it is
assumed that you agree to this.

Prometheus (US - BD)

Feature

Archeologist couple Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) discover a star map that they interpret as an invitation from humanity’s forerunners, the ‘Engineers.’ Determined to find out more about them, the couple boards the scientific vessel Prometheus, created and funded by Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce), CEO of the Weyland Corporation. Lead by mission director Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron) and monitored by Weyland’s android David (Michael Fassbender), the team of explorers find a clue to the origins of mankind on Earth and embark on a thrilling journey to the darkest corners of the universe where they fight a terrifying battle to save the future of the human race.

There’s absolutely no mistaking exactly how big of a mess Ridley Scott’s Prometheus is. I understand exactly why at least half the film-going audience despised the experience and why fandom is comparing it to other disappointing belated sequels, like Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and the alpha and omega of prequel whipping boys, The Phantom Menace. However, I happen to have enjoyed Prometheus. A lot. At first, I was simply stricken by Scott’s outstanding visuals and left numbed. Soon enough I awakened from my beautiful sci-fi stupor and was enamored by the B-movie charm found in the film’s prevalent narrative and logical shortcomings. I often claim my favourite kind of blockbuster is the kind that mixes arthouse with tried and true B-movie conventions. The best ones feature stronger characters and plotlines than Prometheus, but we can’t always get what we want. What I find most interesting about this situation, as opposed to so many other times I’ve been on the wrong side of the opinion fence, is that I don’t find myself entirely ostracized when stating my opinion. Plenty of viewers (some of which probably defended Avatar) have flat-out dismissed the entire film, but, on the whole, I find even those that didn’t enjoy the film are more than willing to talk about it on a surprisingly civil level. Love it or hate it, I’m guessing most of you can’t recall another feature this divisive in 2012 inspiring more enticing discussion than Prometheus. Not even the year’s genuinely great films are this much fun to talk about.

And guess what? This is a review, not a two-way conversation. You are all held captive by my opinions. Mwa ha ha ha ha.

The main problem, among many, is that of expectations. As Scott himself put it, his film ‘shares DNA with Alien,’ but it shares just as much with ‘big idea’ sci-fi epics, like Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. Obviously Alien owes something to Kubrick’s film visually, but Prometheus shares much of writer Arthur C. Clarke’s basic premise, and thus, the (supposed) promise of an intellectual treatment of the themes. The problem here being that the mysteries posed by the film’s oh-so-perfect trailers were never going to be answered in any satisfying manner. Any answer will be nothing more than ‘an answer’ and, in this case, an answer isn’t as compelling as a question. Scott and screenwriters Damon Lindelof ( Lost) and Jon Spaihts (the blindingly daft The Darkest Hour and other unproduced, supposedly great sci-fi scripts) seem to understand this, but make the fatal mistake of not knowing exactly what information to withhold. As nuance after nuance is more or less plainly laid out in front of us it appears that Scott and Lindelof realize they’ve played all of their cards, and to counter they suddenly whip-out an entirely new deck, effectively rebooting every supposed answer we were given. The supposed moral is that there is no answer to man’s big questions, which I actually appreciate. But then they pull cheap tricks, like silencing David’s words to the surviving Engineer, as if this particular mystery will make any difference on the remaining minutes of the film, which tend to betray everything else that came before. This is ultimately the most frustrating thing about Prometheus – the realization that nothing we just watched really counted – it was all an elaborate set-up for a sequel that will supposedly answer the unanswerable questions. I will concede that this is unequivocally bad storytelling and exactly the kind I complain about on a regular basis.

One of these supposed ‘empty mysteries’ that doesn’t bother me is that of David’s intentions. In fact, I very much appreciated the process of trying to discern his sometimes random, destructive actions and found that almost every conclusion was an amusing one. My favourite reading is the simplest one – David is a jerk that enjoys pushing buttons, literally and figuratively. Without discussing his actions in too much detail or contrasting the theory with others, I like the way David works as a prototype/amalgamation version of the artificial humans that appear in Alien and Aliens. He’s got all the grace and heart of Bishop while presenting Ash’s indifferent evil in a more personal and ambiguous light. He’s also clearly an analogue of 2001’s Hal 9000. Then there’s the fundamental ingredient of Michael Fassbender’s wonderful performance. Fassbender appears to be one aspect of the film that even less amorous viewers seem to think worked. And who doesn’t want David to do bad things to this crew anyway? I certainly wasn’t a fan of Holloway and I liked the movie. I’ve heard it discussed that Fassbender’s polysemousness character treatment of David is the symptom of a larger problem – that of Scott being more interested in exploring androids than the promised big ideas. Again, I understand the sense of disillusionment, but don’t understand not wanting to explore androids along with Scott, especially given Fassbender’s portrayal and the fact that androids fit the theme of searching for one’s creator so well.

To hell with themes and narrative balance, let’s move on to something more incidental that seems to curse all discourse in regards to Prometheus. If there’s one thing I hate about discussing a movie I liked with someone who wasn’t so fond of it, it’s that annoying tendency for the opposing party to pull out a single sequence as definitive proof of an entire film not working. This happens all the time and it never fails to not convince anyone of anything, because most movies, good or bad, aren’t made up of a single sequence. The only time this argument really works is when the single sequence comes towards the end of a film and effectively defines/redefines the entire thing. But even a bad twist or unnecessary coda can be easily overlooked if the bulk of a movie works without it, which is actually the best argument against Prometheus. Instead of pointing out the rather obvious manner Scott betrays his audience’s confidence at the very end of the movie, the one sequence that I’m most commonly and unimaginatively opposed with is the one where the dopey scientists are foolishly killed by slime monsters. Frankly, this scene didn’t even register as a problem when I first saw the film and I was a little surprised it ended up as a major bone of contention (something similar happened when everyone in the world but me was apparently bothered by Darth Vader’s big ‘NO’ at the end of Revenge of the Sith).

An essential thought that I’ve kept in mind while approaching Prometheus (all of the Alien films, actually) is that Scott always said he intended the original Alien to be little more than a well-made B-movie. While shooting Alien, he repeatedly cited Tobe Hooper’s proto-slasher The Texas Chainsaw Massacre as a major influence. Throughout Alien’s otherwise professional and generally smart characters do incredibly stupid things for the sake of a good scare. These characters all feel natural, thanks to good performances and a lot of improvised dialogue, but they’re still set forth like an alien’s smorgasbord and still make choices according to that plot requirement. The only advantages the Prometheus characters have are titles that tell us they’re probably good at a specific scientific job. I agree that, if taken literally, these scientists aren’t acting very professionally, but I didn’t really expect particularly realistic characterizations from an Alien prequel, even an Alien prequel that promised huge ideas in its trailers. What’s worse is that I actually find the sequence in mind kind of clever and more than a little bit funny, because Scott is so very obviously playing with slasher movie clichés. The two burnout characters are killed while getting high (complete with bong noise), because they’re investigating strange noises and no one can help them because the people in charge are all having premarital sex. Hilarious. My argument does, of course, land among other entirely subjective points of view, because I enjoyed the way Prometheus recalled the other Alien movies (an exploration scene told through helmet cameras, creatures that ‘impregnate’ people, said impregnated person not being permitted back aboard the spacecraft, untrustworthy robots, the ‘final girl,’ et cetera). Others, I’m told, would’ve preferred an entirely standalone feature.

Another particularly personal element that makes this sloppy little movie so loveable is its supposedly accidental connections to Mario Bava’s Planet of the Vampires. More than three decades ago Ridley Scott was accused of ripping off Bava’s super-low-budget sci-fi/horror hybrid when he made the original Alien. Co-writer Dan O’Bannon verified influence in some interviews (while denying it in others), but Scott refused to admit any similarities, swearing up and down that he’d never seen Bava’s film. The thing is that the similarities aren’t specific to the two screenplays – Scott used a very similar aesthetic to Bava’s, albeit with a much bigger price tag and a little help from H.R. Giger’s design work. Now comes Prometheus, a film that most behind the scenes accounts appear to credit Scott with over Lindelof or Spaihts and the once incidental similarities to Planet of the Vampires are now legion (spaceships named for Greek Mythology, human astronauts discovering ancient alien spaceship ruins, a long-dead alien species using the humans for their long-dead means). Scott’s and Bava’s films have arguably even more in common with Michael Bay’s The Island and Parts: The Clonus Horror – and the makers of Parts successfully sued (or at least successfully reached a settlement with) Dreamworks for the similarities. There is also no way in hell Prometheus’ costume designer, Janty Yates, wasn’t inspired by Planet of the Vampires costume designer Gabriele Mayer (who was also a clear influence on X-Men costume designer Louise Mingenbach).

Video

Prometheus was shot using the highest of the high-end Red Epic digital 3D cameras and made by one of history’s most visual directors and an extremely talented cinematographer in Dariusz Wolski. Anything less than the best Blu-ray video presentation is a felony. Fortunately, this 2D, 2.40:1, 1080p release is top of the line, fusing the Red format’s ability to create sharp, high contrast textures and smooth, bloomless colour blends. Anything that makes for a good HD transfer appears here, from big, complex wide shots brimming with a mosaic of textures, to the intricate details of microscopic chemical reactions. I hadn’t noticed until this viewing that Scott and Wolski deal largely in the most basic colour palettes of all four Alien films. This makes for an uncanny, beautiful/ugly combination of Scott’s own sickly greens and James Cameron’s cool blues. The filmmakers even appear to take the ‘brandy’ palette of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s Alien: Resurrection into account. Prometheus tends to skew more yellow than the other Alien films and it is often these yellows that pop against the often more staid palette, though there’s also quite a bit of red highlighting throughout the production design. And I haven’t even talked about the all-important black levels, which are deep and pure without sacrificing important details. The transfer isn’t entirely quibble free, though. There are minor sharpening effects on the finer details of some of the most expansive shots, specifically around the black edges of higher contrast items, and I also noticed occasional hints of banding effects on some of the smoother blue background blends. Otherwise, I’ll be damned if I can find anything to complain about, expect maybe that this is one of those transfers that make me wish I had a bigger set. Something IMAX-sized would probably do.

Audio

There are some movies you just have to listen to loud. I don’t care how they feel about the film itself, but I can’t imagine anyone would find this mix’s extreme dynamics and use of natural and unnatural aural elements anything short of perfect. Prometheus’ sound design is so utterly meticulous that it pushed my aging system (5.1, not 7.1) to its limit and even beyond in some cases, as the heaviest LFE rumbles (usually relating to a spaceship engine of some kind) vibrated by my poor subwoofer into a buzzing state. The entire film is so incredibly lively in this regard I’m overwhelmed by the prospect of approaching any of the sound critically. The pre-title opening sets the stage with entirely nature-based effects that steadily increase in volume to a huge rush of massive cascading waterfalls, yet the subtleties of more intricate noise are not lost as the first Engineer drinks his creepy liquid and very loudly dissolves into a series of cracking bones and fizzling blood. Aboard the Prometheus, the ship itself is consistently buzzing with the atmospheric hum of beepy-boopy computer noises and vocal echoes bleeding throughout stereo and surround channels. Outside the ship the engine’s roar moves throughout the room, blowing debris past the viewer and into the rear channels (most apparent, obviously, during the silicone storm). It is aboard the alien ship, however, where the sound design stands apart from other clean and loud action movie mixes. Here, the sound bridges that natural versus unnatural gap more often, including cave-like ambience with slight alterations to mark it as uncanny and the sound of the Engineers’ bizarre biotechnology systems. The aforementioned dangerously punchy LFE presentation gets an equal treatment in the eclectic and dynamic range, and features a lot of abstract, electronic dips. Marc Streitenfeld’s original score is among my personal favourites this year and possibly the best of the more traditionally symphonic choices. Streitenfeld manages to create memorable melodies in his original themes and pay proper homage to Jerry Goldsmith without regularly quoting the Alien composer directly.

Extras

I doubt I need to waste more page space complaining about Fox’s somewhat cruel decision to release the bulk of Prometheus’ plentiful extra features with only the 3D Blu-ray release, despite the bulk of their customer base not having 3D capabilities. I’ll just move on to the fact that I was sent the less extras-heavy, 2D, two-disc (one Blu-ray, one DVD) set for this review. The extras begin with two feature commentary tracks. The first track features Scott on his own. Scott is always a good commentary listen; he’s got a curmudgeony grandpa meets influential college professor meets down to earth celebrity artist from New York in the 1970s flow to his speech. He’s great about filling space without overwhelming his audience and he does it all without sounding as if he’s taken more than a minute of his day to prepare for it. I think the fundamental thing to take from this track is that Scott was really enjoying the creative process of digital 3D and exploring the imagery of a sci-fi universe. He does cover the story and characters throughout the track (often in literal descriptions of the on-screen action – as if we can’t see with our own eyes), but is more interested in story themes and the specifics of image-based storytelling (he loves describing the reasoning behind the most incidental background detail). This isn’t among the director’s best tracks, but it’s still stronger than the average director’s commentary, especially considering that key curmudgeon component.

The second commentary, which I sampled alongside Scott’s for the sake of getting this review out in a timely manner, features writers Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof. It’s probably important to note that these guys do not appear to be in the same room and that this isn’t a back and forth discussion, but rather, a cut-and-paste affair where the commentators are not acknowledging each other. Not surprisingly, this track is driven by the film’s story, including invaluable descriptions of what changed between the various versions of the screenplay. Spaihts has the more interesting side of the track since his screenplay was the first draft and features the biggest differences to what ended up on screen. Subsequent interviews have revealed he wasn’t very happy about these changes, but he’s a perfect gentleman here, at least on the surface. He’s an expert in sounding complimentary while crediting some of the more iffy plot points to Lindelof and Scott. What I like about Lindelof’s side of the track, besides the fact that he’s very personable and interesting to listen to, is that he’s already defensive about plotting problems, despite having recorded the commentary before the film was even released. Clearly, he knew there were problems and even apologizes a bit (sort of backhandedly).

Next up are the highly anticipated deleted and extended scenes, each with a short description and optional commentary with editor Pietro Scalia and visual effects supervisor Richard Stammers (36:50, HD). These scenes, 14 in total, fill in some of the blanks, but mostly in vague visual terms. I don’t wish to spoil exactly what these add to the story, but do believe only a small number of the detractors’ numerous issues with the production. The best stuff for the film overall is character-related, but I’m guessing people will talk more about the much less ambiguous scene between Weyland and the surviving Engineer.

Under The Peter Weyland Files, you will find text files supposedly written for/by Weyland and four pieces of ‘extended universe’ footage, some of which were used as viral marketing before the film was released. Quiet Eye: Elizabeth Shaw (2:40, HD) is a video interview-like-thing with the character that is reminiscent of the Replicant tests in Blade Runner. Happy Birthday, David (2:30, HD) is a faux-commercial for a consumer version of the David android. Prometheus Transmission (7:10, HD) is apparently something that would’ve been transmitted ahead of the ship to the supposed Engineers, including profiles/interviews of the major characters (seemingly for Weyland’s in-house purposes), a look at various objects found on the ship, and images from various future cultures of the world. TED Conference, 2023 (7:00, HD) is a faux-TED speech from Weyland and seemingly the only reason Guy Pierce was cast to play an extremely old man.

Overall

I know what you’re thinking: ‘This whole review reads suspiciously like a laundry list of excuses, Gabe.’ And you’re mostly right. Prometheus could’ve been a classic and even my abiding affection for its pitch-perfect, arthouse-meets-exploitation imagery can’t blind me to its screenplay’s many holes. But I still think time will be kind to the film and that Scott’s form over function approach will prove at least somewhat influential. Not Alien levels of influential, of course. This two-disc, 2D release set is a bit disappointing for not including Charles de Lauzirika’s super-long behind the scenes documentary, but does feature a bunch of deleted/extended scenes and dual commentary tracks, along with nearly perfect audio/video quality, so it’s far from a total loss.

I want to leave you with the reminder that Ridley Scott’s films have long been criticized for a lack of narrative strength in his films, specifically the film’s that went on to be largely reevaluated cult favourites. While reading reviews to Prometheus I was struck by how similar the reactions were to those of Blade Runner upon its original 1982 release. I’m not saying that Prometheus will necessarily share Blade Runner’s largely positive second considerations, but crazier things have happened. Here’s a brief sampling of those 1982 reviews:

Quote: He seems more concerned with creating his film worlds than populating them with plausible characters, and that's the trouble this time. Blade Runner is a stunningly interesting visual achievement, but a failure as a story. – Roger Ebert

Quote: It's easy enough to pinpoint the film’s flaws, particularly its poorly written and developed screenplay and Harrison Ford's unambitious, crushingly dull performance. Yet I don't think I’ve ever been as spellbound at the movies as I was during both viewings of Blade Runner. – Joel E. Siegel, City Paper, Washington

Quote: And it's also a mess, at least as far as its narrative is concerned. Almost nothing is explained coherently, and the plot has great lapses, from the changeable nature of one key character to the frequent disappearances of another. The story lurches along awkwardly, helped not at all by some ponderous stabs at developing Deckard's character. – Janet Maslin, New York Times

* Note: The above images are taken from the Blu-ray and DVD Special Edition resized for the page. Full-resolution captures are available by clicking individual images, but due to .jpg compression they are not necessarily representative of the quality of the transfer.

Advertisements

Comments

Reply

Message

Enter the message here then press submit. The username, password and message are required. Please make the message constructive, you are fully responsible for the legality of anything you contribute. Terms & conditions apply.

Xian Tianhan wrote: This is easily one of the absolute best reviews I've ever read on this site. I don't post here often, I mostly read and lurk. But here I felt compelled because this is the first time I've read a review *anywhere* and agreed with every single point. Bravo Gabe. Thank you very much. It means a lot to have lurkers come out of the woodwork to give a compliment.

Jeyl wrote: Also, why does Shaw's faith remain unchanged even after going through so much religious contradictions? There is nothing about her faith that proves rewarding to her especially when she states that this planet is not what they had thought it was. When she declares to the audience how she's unable to create life, wouldn't she find that being pregnant to be a miracle or a blessing? If her faith was that strong that she still believes it in the end, why doesn't she pick up on the pretty obvious details like the engineer corpse being dead for 2,000 years? I'm not a religious person and I found the implication to be very obvious.

I believe that this is part of the implication that the big buff white guys they're calling Engineers are not the top of the food chain. I assumed this would be the thrust of the supposed sequel. This may just be a pet theory though, I don't think I could argue any proof throughout the film.

Another issue that bugged me was how the film tried to have characters be both devoted to religion and a professional scientist. The character of Elizabeth Shaw for example makes it pretty clear to everyone that she's a person of faith more than of scientist when she discusses the entire premise of the Engineers with only a cave painting of a stick figure pointing at dots. Instead of keeping the plot simple and saying that the cave drawings represented a group of aliens who left us a map should we decide to pursue future contact with them, Shaw throws in this contrived idea that the tall guy is a member of a race that created human life on Earth.... It's just a painting of a tall guy pointing at dots. How does a devoted religious person jump to such a religious contradiction and still have a strong sense of faith in her religion?

Also, why does Shaw's faith remain unchanged even after going through so much religious contradictions? There is nothing about her faith that proves rewarding to her especially when she states that this planet is not what they had thought it was. When she declares to the audience how she's unable to create life, wouldn't she find that being pregnant to be a miracle or a blessing? If her faith was that strong that she still believes it in the end, why doesn't she pick up on the pretty obvious details like the engineer corpse being dead for 2,000 years? I'm not a religious person and I found the implication to be very obvious.

There you go. That *is* a worthless sequence from a story standpoint. I'm pretty sure it's only there to draw some kind of vague line to At the Mountains of Madness, which Prometheus already has plenty in common with. One thing the trailers implied that was never really delivered on was that there was a lot of human transformations in the movie, and really there was just the one and it was superfluous. I wonder if the failure of that Thing remake/prequel made them hold back.

Gabe Powers wrote: It's fine to not like a movie because it doesn't meet your story expectations, but it's more constructive to fault the filmmakers for shoddy craftsmanship or plotting issues, rather than for not being able to read your mind.

Alright, let's talk about the zombie.

The zombie attack in Prometheus for me represents one of the most pointless sequences I've seen in a film all year. We have this crew member who is found wrapped up like a pretzel, starts killing no-names all over the place until he gets shot, torched, and finally run over till he's dead. The end result? Nobody gives a c**p. This was a crew member who they couldn't find that just walked back to the ship on his own and started randomly killing people.

Compare that scene to John Carpenter's The Thing after Childs torches the Dog thing in the kennel. After putting out the fire, there's a whole 30 second silent shot of the characters just starring at the corpse wondering what they had just witnessed. Next scene shows the doctor dissecting the creature with everyone around him to see what this creature is. This is the moment in the film where the whole tone of the film changes and everyone starts feeling on edge. The zombie attack in Prometheus doesn't do anything for the story and feels severely out of place. You could delete the whole scene from the movie and nothing would be lost. I would argue that it should have been deleted because anyone with a sane sense preservation wouldn't send an old man into the temple where the black goo came from. But no, instead they just forget about the whole thing, ignore other warnings and set out for the temple where all the bad stuff is. And wouldn't you know it? Everyone but Shaw dies.

This is easily one of the absolute best reviews I've ever read on this site. I don't post here often, I mostly read and lurk. But here I felt compelled because this is the first time I've read a review *anywhere* and agreed with every single point. Bravo Gabe.

I assume you mostly skipped my post and replied to mlcm instead, but again, it's sometimes important to not judge fiction as it ties into our expectations of other fiction, even when it ties into it. It's fine to not like a movie because it doesn't meet your story expectations, but it's more constructive to fault the filmmakers for shoddy craftsmanship or plotting issues, rather than for not being able to read your mind.

And you missed the entire point of my post. Since I'm not that good at conveying my point, I'll let JimSmash help me out.

"The Space Jockey was created by H.R. Giger, who also created the Alien Creature. Both had visual aesthetics that he dubbed "BIOMECHANICAL", which is prevalent in his paintings and sculpture. The link of Giger established (in my mind at least) that wherever the Derelict Spacecraft came from, it was from a sector of the universe that was Biomechanical. Just imagine: An entire area of Space that was all Giger/Biomechanical! I still get giddy at the thought.

In ‘Prometheus’, the fossilized bones we saw in 'Alien' have been retconned into space suits. For years Ridley Scott referred to them as bones, but in the last decade he “pulled a Lucas” and said, “oh, you thought those were bones? No, it was a space suit”. Boba Fett is a clone, Darth Vader built C-3PO and without microscopic organisms called ‘Midichlorians’ in your blood, you cannot speak to the Force. Instead of tall biomechanical creatures, Space Jockeys are now just really tall, hairless, super-muscular humans. Yes, they can be called “humans" because their DNA is an exact match to ours. In 'Alien' the Space Jockey represented the eerie vastness of space and the fear of the unknown. By directly linking the Space Jockeys to Earth and Humans, they've greatly narrowed that concept."

Jeyl wrote: I hated this film because it took that awesome and totally alien looking creature known as the Space Jockey and said "That's not an alien creature. That's just some suit being worn by a hairless human guy." What? "Also, it's not a Space Jockey, it's called an engineer." Why? "Because they created life on Earth." WHAT? How could they take something that was so new, so unique and so frightening when it was DEAD and pull a "It's a small world after all!" on it?

Unfortunately you've missed out on the theme of the film. The movie wants to explore the relationship between the Father and the Son. Making the Engineer an alien so alien as to be unfathomable would not function in a film in which the Father/Son relationship cascades downwards from God to Man to Man's machines. The only thing the film really nails is the ambiguous relationship that all Creators have for their creation. There is always something paradoxically satisfying and deeply unsettling in the creation of the uncanny.

Hopefully this perspective might help you understand the film a bit better.

Jeyl wrote: Say what you want about the original reviews for Blade Runner in an attempt to give Prometheus hope for a brighter future. The two movies just don't have the same grab. With Blade Runner, you had this story about machines gaining self-awareness who just want to live. That is a far more believable and understanding story than "Tall hairless men create life on Earth, stupidly kill themselves, and now want to destroy all of humanity for no given reason". Blade Runner had method to it's madness. Whatever method there was to Prometheus' madness, the film treats it like it's none of our business. Just look at the home video tagline that proudly declares "Questions will be answered". How can that not be the case?

I'm afraid the problem with this argument is that much of it is based on the assumption that everyone else has the same opinions in terms of fictional universes and what is and isn't 'believable'. There's also a common misconception that your personal ideas for a film are the 'correct' ones, which is what I mean when I refer to expectations. I'm certainly guilty of this ALL THE TIME (X-Men 3 is a good example). I would've preferred this story went somewhere more specifically attuned to Alien myself, but that's not where the filmmakers went. The problem isn't the concept as much as the fact that they tried to cover the details of their concept when they realized it was so b-movie. The best scenes in the movie are the ones that understand Prometheus is just an incredibly beautiful B-movie, the worst are the ones that try to pretend it's something more.

I also have no interest in discussing the merits of a movie based on it's home video advertising tag line.

Gabe, I feel like I could have written this review myself, because these are EXACTLY my thoughts on the film. Absolutely loved it (saw it twice, already picked up the 4-disc), but deeply (and intentionally) flawed. Your review only makes me appreciate the film even more, so thank you.

Also, you might not know since you were sent the 2-disc version, but there's a CLEAR reference that ties the Alien-Prometheus universe to the Blade Runner universe (as I've always figured it was, even since Alien) on the 4-disc version.http://media2.firstshowing.net/firstshowing/img...

Chris Johnson wrote: Ebert bashed Blade Runner for having a failure of a story, yet he still gave it a thumbs up. WTF? He gave it a positive review after a second (or subsequent) viewing. The thing about Blade Runner is that it's an acquired taste that takes more than a single viewing to appreciate. I wasn't particularly impressed the first time I saw it, today it's my favorite movie.

Gabe, I own the four disc Collector's Edition and I love the extras on disc three. The 3 hour and 40 minute documentary is worth it in addition to the screen test and the costume tests in addition to how some scenes changed from the previz versions. I liked this flawed movie and I'm off to write my review on the Collector's Edition.

Still I enjoyed reading your differing opinion on Prometheus. You should look up Prometheus Mysteries by Comic Book Girl 19 on YouTube.

I didn't hate this movie because it had incomprehensible story telling and "take our word for it" motivations that I wouldn't buy in a children's book. A painting of a stick figure pointing at dots on a cave wall = origin of all mankind(??). I can actually overlook stuff like that. But that's not my main problem with Prometheus.

I hated this film because it took that awesome and totally alien looking creature known as the Space Jockey and said "That's not an alien creature. That's just some suit being worn by a hairless human guy." What? "Also, it's not a Space Jockey, it's called an engineer." Why? "Because they created life on Earth." WHAT? How could they take something that was so new, so unique and so frightening when it was DEAD and pull a "It's a small world after all!" on it?

Say what you want about the original reviews for Blade Runner in an attempt to give Prometheus hope for a brighter future. The two movies just don't have the same grab. With Blade Runner, you had this story about machines gaining self-awareness who just want to live. That is a far more believable and understanding story than "Tall hairless men create life on Earth, stupidly kill themselves, and now want to destroy all of humanity for no given reason". Blade Runner had method to it's madness. Whatever method there was to Prometheus' madness, the film treats it like it's none of our business. Just look at the home video tagline that proudly declares "Questions will be answered". How can that not be the case?

The cliche is the point of the scene. Dissecting it as if it would ever make sense outside of the cliche is a fool's game. It's also all very much in keeping with the original Alien. Again, I don't expect people to like it, or even argue that it's the best way to make a movie, but I still think the quibbles with the sequence refer to expectations. All movies require context.

Ugh, I should also make it clear I'm not getting down of expectations, clearly the people that made those amazing trailers f**ked up by selling it as a big idea sci-fi movie.

i didn't hate the movie (i saw it twice in theaters, once on DVD and even bought the book of art from the movie) but yes, i was very disappointed with the movie. i see signs and shades of a true masterpiece in there but it's quelled with a terrible script.

Gabe, yes, that Milburn/vagina snake part is IMO so abysmal that it's mind numbing. first off, the 2 lost men (and the rest of the crew) had ability to contact the ship (so why when they thought they were lost didn't they do that). next, both men were freaked out with the decap'd Engineer, then when they find the bodies stacked up of the other Engineers Milburn especially was freaked out, then 2 seconds later he runs up to said vagina snake without taking any precautions.....etc. etc.

it's hack writing. it's a cliche move that is the equivalent of in a slasher movie the victim running down to the dark scary basement instead of running out the front door to safety. also things like after Shaw has her "baby" not one person (several people besides David knew about it) brings it up ever again?!! etc etc.

i agree the visuals were breathtaking. i love the entire cast (Kate Dickey & Charlize were so underused though) and the direction was good. also i LOVE the Engineers and am a tad embarrassed to admit i found them hot! LOL. the fx work was top notch. the music score sucked for the most part. the intense music used in the trailers should have been used in this (or at least music as intense) but they kept using the piece of music that sounds like it belongs in an uplifting superhero movie. it robbed any scene of intended intensity.

I find that there seems to be one genre blockbuster every year that has huge, huge problems that I still adore. Last year it was X-Men First Class. The year before that it was Kick-Ass. The year before that it was District 9.

Gabe Powers wrote: This may blow your mind, but you're allowed to think movies you like have problems.

This, to me, represents the problem with Internet film criticism. People think that I'm crazy for pointing out all the misogyny and general sexism and imperialism in James Bond movies even though I'm a huge fan. Just because I like something a lot, doesn't mean I'm blind to the problems. This seemingly complicated position is foreign to many regular people as well as Internet film critics. Thanks, Gabe for pointing out what totally makes sense!

I appreciate that you have a reasonable set of criticisms for and against the film. I've thought that it's one of those films that just doesn't make a lick of sense, but is absolutely beautiful to look at. Hard to endure as a narrative, but certainly easy to watch as an aesthetic experience. Too bad there are better films with more depth that should be obsessing the Internet discourse, but alas, as you've so correctly pointed out, it was a matter of expectations.

No need to apologize for typos, just say you're sorry for having an opinion different than mine! How dare you!

I was initially really disappointed in this one but I've learned to ignore its stupid characters and plot developments and just enjoy the visual majesty of it. It was enough to warrant a Blu-ray purchase for sure.

You're absolutely right. Even the year's best movies haven't inspired half as much discussion as this one. That's worth something. Though I must say, there's plenty of Looper talk going around now.